Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald, nominee for chief justice, speaks before the state judiciary Committee in Hartford on Feb. 26, 2018. McDonald’s nomination to become chief justice survived a close, nearly partisan vote in the state House of Representatives on Monday, sending the issue to the Senate. less

Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald, nominee for chief justice, speaks before the state judiciary Committee in Hartford on Feb. 26, 2018. McDonald’s nomination to become chief justice survived a ... more

Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald’s nomination to become chief justice survived a close, nearly partisan vote in the state House of Representatives on Monday, March 12, 2018, sending the issue to the Senate. less

Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald’s nomination to become chief justice survived a close, nearly partisan vote in the state House of Representatives on Monday, March 12, 2018, sending the issue ... more

HARTFORD — Supreme Court Justice Andrew J. McDonald’s nomination to become chief justice survived a razor-close, nearly partisan vote in the state House of Representatives on Monday, sending the issue to the Senate, where he is likely to face another tough challenge.

The 75-74 House vote came after more than three-and-a-half hours of debate including speeches critical of the 2012 repeal of the death penalty, which McDonald had supported when he was a state senator.

“I have always been impressed with how Andrew conducts himself,” she said. “In my opinion, Andrew J. McDonald would be a wonderful chief justice.”

Five Democrats, including Rep. Bruce Morris, of Norwalk, voted against the nomination. Rep. Tom O'Dea, R-New Canaan, a lawyer, was absent from the debate and vote, citing a professional conflict.

McDonald’s chances in the Senate are in doubt, with Democratic Sen. Gayle Slossberg of Milford recusing herself over a six-year-old personal conflict with McDonald, when he was Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s chief legal counsel. The Senate is tied 18-18, and with the absence of Slossberg, a party-line vote would kill McDonald’s candidacy.

Echoes of Washington

“He has a deep understanding of the role and the impact that the justice system has on the everyday lives of Connecticut residents, and the value of ensuring equality and fairness through the court’s many responsibilities,” Malloy said after the vote on his nominee. He called for “a substantive and objective assessment of facts” in the Senate.

Malloy warned that the extreme partisanship of Washington politics was infiltrating Connecticut.

“I am most concerned about Washington coming to Hartford,” Malloy said. “That’s what’s played itself out in the last several months, and we’ll see what happens.”

The issue highlights a deep national divide that echoes the final year of the Obama administration, when congressional Republicans ignored Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court and waited for the presidential election. In April, Malloy announced he would not seek re-election this year.

After McDonald’s nomination, Republicans accused him of judicial activism. Democratic leaders responded with cries of potential homophobia over McDonald, who would become the first openly gay chief justice in the nation if confirmed in the Senate.

Republicans said their opposition to McDonald was based on his record and not politically motivated, but the Republican State Central Committee posted on social media the phone numbers of House and Senate Democrats, under a headline that said “Do you want Dan Malloy to become the next Chief Justice of Connecticut’s Supreme Court?”

Taking the high road

The debate began at 1 p.m. and ended at 4:30 Tuesday, and none of the personal issues that marred the discussion over the past several weeks were raised in the House debate.

“The nomination itself is a great honor,” said Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, R-Naugatuck, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, which voted against McDonald. “The sexual orientation of this or any other nominee who comes before us, is not a factor.”

After Monday’s vote, Speaker of the House Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, said he was optimistic McDonald will be the next chief justice.

“I know (former) Sen. McDonald has enjoyed very good friendships with many of the senators on both sides of the aisle,” Aresimowicz said. “Some of the objections that are being raised I know have been discussed privately between Justice McDonald and some of the senators and I hope it can move forward.”

Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee who introduced the nomination, said that McDonald is fully qualified.

“We answered that question five years ago,” Tong said, reminding the House that McDonald has been on the high bench since 2013 and has sat on hundreds of cases. “Judges have to be able to make tough decisions without influence from the other branches,” he said.

Rep. Richard Smith, R-New Fairfield, a former attorney, accused McDonald of acting improperly as a Supreme Court Court justice. He cited cases in which McDonald may have considered facts not raised during a lower court trial to make his Supreme Court decisions.

Smith said he could not “allow an individual who has clearly flaunted the rules — created his own rules to suit his own purposes — to lead the Judicial Branch.”

Republicans charged that McDonald should never have sat on the case that led to the expansion of the death-penalty repeal to include Death Row inmates because he voted for the death penalty as a legislator.

Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury, who has been a member of the Judiciary Committee since his 1988 election, said that the high court followed the General Assembly’s bill, which was aimed at future death-penalty cases.

“The court didn’t do away with the death penalty,” he said. “The legislature did.”